A.M. No. P-12-3080 - Adlawan vs. Capilitan

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-12-3080)

Petitioner (Prosecution of Administrative Charge)

The administrative action originated from a letter-complaint by Judge Adlawan reporting respondent’s pregnancy by a married man and asserting that this amounted to immorality and a violation of the ethical standards for court personnel. The judge characterized the respondent’s prior reputation as modest and diligent and explained that the announcement of her pregnancy prompted the complaint to the court.

Respondent (Admissions and Circumstances)

Respondent was appointed court stenographer on February 4, 2008. She had been previously married under Muslim law and had two children; she was raising those children unmarriedly after separation. Respondent admitted the material facts: she acknowledged becoming pregnant by a man who was married to another woman. She explained that the man had represented himself to be separated; she did not elaborate further during investigation and requested compassion and the lightest penalty because she solely supported her children.

Key Dates and Procedural Steps

Appointment of respondent: February 4, 2008.
Alleged encounter and pregnancy timeline: respondent met the man in February 2010 and subsequently became pregnant.
OCA direction to comment: November 17, 2010.
Respondent’s written reply (admitting the judge’s statements): December 30, 2010.
OCA memorandum recommending referral for investigation: May 24, 2011.
Referral to Executive Judge Elenita M. Arabejo for investigation: August 8, 2011.
OCA recommendation to mete penalty and re-docket as regular administrative matter: March 29, 2012.
Decision of the Supreme Court (Third Division): August 29, 2012.

Applicable Law and Standards

The decision applies under the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the governing constitutional framework for public office and public trust (decision date is 2012). Administrative and ethical provisions invoked include: the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees; the Code of Judicial Ethics as to the conduct expected of court personnel; and the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URAC). Jurisprudential principles concerning immorality and public trust were relied upon in prior cases cited by the Court.

Factual Findings by Investigating Judge and OCA

The Investigating Judge found respondent’s admissions credible and concluded that she engaged in extra‑marital sexual relations with a man who remained legally married. The Investigating Judge characterized the conduct as immoral and unbecoming of a court employee and recommended a penalty of suspension for six months and one day. The OCA adopted the findings and recommended re‑docketing the matter as a regular administrative case with the same penalty.

Legal Analysis: Definition and Scope of “Immorality”

The Court adopted a broad definition of immorality that includes sexual misconduct and conduct indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, dissoluteness, or willful and shameless conduct showing moral indifference to respectable opinion and public order. The Code of Judicial Ethics requires court personnel to avoid any whiff of impropriety in both official duties and private conduct; there is no bifurcation between private and official morality for those who serve the Judiciary.

Application of Law to Facts

Respondent was informed of the charges and given opportunity to respond; she repeatedly admitted the facts that she became pregnant by a man who was married. The Court treated those admissions as establishing that respondent engaged in sexual relations with a married man. This conduct was held to violate the moral standards expected of judicial employees and to desecrate the sanctity of marriage as an institution. Given the explicit admissions and the nature of the conduct, the Court found the elements of “disgraceful and immoral conduct” established.

Principle of Public Trust and Relevance of the 1987 Constitution

The Court reiterated the enduring principle that public office is a public trust.

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-12-3080)

Procedural Posture

The matter is a Letter-Complaint filed by Judge Armando S. Adlawan, Presiding Judge of the 6th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Bonifacio-Don Mariano Marcos, Misamis Occidental, against respondent Estrella P. Capilitan, Court Stenographer of the same court, for violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
The complaint was transmitted to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), which directed respondent to comment on the complaint on November 17, 2010.
Respondent submitted a letter dated December 30, 2010, admitting the factual basis of the complaint and requesting compassion and the lightest possible penalty.
The OCA, in a Memorandum dated May 24, 2011, recommended referral of the complaint to the Executive Judge for investigation, report and recommendation.
The Court referred the case to Executive Judge Elenita M. Arabejo, Regional Trial Court, Tangub City, for investigation, report and recommendation on August 8, 2011.
The Investigating Judge submitted findings and recommended suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day.
The OCA, in its Memorandum dated March 29, 2012, recommended re-docketing the administrative complaint as a regular administrative matter and imposing suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day without pay for Immorality.
The Supreme Court, through the decision authored by Justice Peralta and rendered August 29, 2012, adopted the findings and recommendations of the Investigating Judge and the OCA and imposed the recommended penalty.

Parties and Positions

Complainant:
- Judge Armando S. Adlawan, Presiding Judge, 6th MCTC, Bonifacio-Don Mariano Marcos, Misamis Occidental.
- Reported the matter after respondent voluntarily disclosed the circumstances to him and his staff; characterized respondent’s conduct as a breach of the ethical standards in the Judiciary.
Respondent:
- Estrella P. Capilitan, Court Stenographer, 6th MCTC, Bonifacio-Don Mariano Marcos, Misamis Occidental.
- Admitted the facts as stated by the complainant and declined to further explain her circumstances during the investigation; asked for compassion and the lightest penalty due to being a single parent supporting her children.

Factual Background

Employment and personal background:
- Respondent Estrella P. Capilitan was appointed Court Stenographer on February 4, 2008, on the basis of Judge Adlawan’s recommendation.
- Respondent had previously been married under Muslim laws to a Muslim husband; that relationship produced two (2) children.
- Respondent is now single-handedly raising her children following separation from her husband.
Disclosure and circumstances of the incident:
- Respondent was described by complainant as simple, innocent, soft-spoken, modest, diligent in work, and well-liked by staff.
- Respondent announced to the judge and staff that she was four (4) months pregnant by a married man.
- Respondent related that in February 2010 she met a former high school classmate who represented himself as separated from his wife; respondent stated she "gave in to temptation."
- Respondent alleged that the man became elusive when she informed him of her pregnancy.
- Respondent was apologetic and acknowledged her mistake to the judge and staff.

Respondent’s Admissions and Responses

Respondent admitted the truth of the allegations made by the complainant and stated that the judge’s letter reflected her own admission.
In her December 30, 2010 letter, respondent elected not to further explain her predicament and again admitted the factual statements attributed to her.
During the investigation before the Executive Judge, respondent refused to elaborate or give more information about her circumstances but reaffirmed the truth of complainant’s statements that she was impregnated by a man who was married to another woman.
Respondent asked the authorities for compassion and asked that the lightest penalty be imposed, citing that she supports her children single-handedly.

Issues Presented

Whether respondent’s admitted pregnancy by a married man and the circumstances surrounding it constitute disgraceful and immoral conduct warranting administrative sanction under applicable ethical and administrative rules governing Judiciary personnel.
If respondent is administratively liable, what penalty is appropriate considering the nature of the offense and that it is her first offense.

Investigative Findings and Recommendation

The Investigating Judge found that respondent engaged in extra-marital affairs and committed immoral conduct unbecoming of a court employee, based on respondent’s admission that sh